Some states are officially loosening their stay at home restrictions, and more will join in the coming months as Americans attempt to inch their way back to pre-COVID-19 life. Some of us will return to work, gather in small groups, and maybe even dine at a neighborhood restaurant.
As we proceed, what will it take to keep us safe and prevent new spikes in infections? Many experts say we won’t be out of the woods until there’s a vaccine, but how would a national vaccination plan even work? At the same time, technological solutions are being proposed, especially related to contact tracing, the process by which public health officials can map and anticipate the spread of a virus. Google and Apple, for example, have proposed harnessing our cell phones for contact tracing using Bluetooth proximity detection.
Yet technological solutions raise a whole host of privacy and civil liberties concerns. Throughout history, examples can be found of using health and public safety as a proxy for discrimination, and a thinly-veiled excuse to carry out racist agendas that infringe on civil rights and liberties — especially during times of crisis. As technology continues to outpace the law, how can we ensure its use is unbiased, and truly in the interest of promoting public health?
On the podcast this week, we explored these questions with professor Michele Goodwin, the founding director of the Center for Biotechnology and Global Health Policy at the University of California Irvine School of Law, and ACLU staff attorney Jennifer Granick, who leads our work on surveillance and cybersecurity. You can listen to the episode here.
By Vivian Alana Caesar, ACLU Communications Intern
Find the house, approach the door, ring the doorbell and wait with bated breath to see who will show on the other side — this was my daily routine while in Iowa. During the winter of my senior year of college, I volunteered in Ankeny, Iowa with a presidential campaign. The new experiences brought me relationships and campaign knowledge, but also placed the inequity of the caucus process front and center. Each time a door opened, I was reminded that people who look like me, the Black population in Iowa, constitute only 4 percent of the state.
Once the police were called on me for canvassing a neighborhood and a fellow team member of color was verbally harassed, the inequities were no longer solely related to the caucus process.
The social inequities that we already knew as Black and Brown women were reinforced as well. What we faced, however, was marginal in light of the millions of racial minorities living without access to voting rights in the United States. As we head into the general election, we must remember the states whose nominating contests and voters set the stage for this year’s primary, and the voters who weren’t allowed to cast their ballots in those contests.
Additionally, the same groups that are underrepresented by population, in comparison to their white counterparts, are those that are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. We must not forget that the racial and social inequities that pervade our nation have a direct impact on the electoral process.
As the first state in the nation to hold a caucus or primary, this small, overwhelmingly white state with variable turnout still sets the precedent for the trajectory of the entire presidential primary. I could not understand how a state that is not representative of the racial, ethnic, and class diversity of the nation could still be first. Iowa is not the only state, however, that highlights inequities in the election process.
The historically positive impact that the Iowa caucuses, or even the New Hampshire primary, can have on a candidate’s campaign is irrefutable, but it is also inherently inequitable to systematically push the voices of people of color to the background for the sake of tradition and status quo.
This is not the only way that the election’s process indirectly favors white voters. Three states — Iowa, Virginia, and Kentucky — in their state constitutions, permanently disenfranchise all residents convicted of felonies unless the governor restores their right to vote.
According to the 2010 census, eachofthese states has a disproportionately high number of Black and Brown people in prisons and jails, with Black, Native American, and Latinx incarceration rates continuing to rise. In Virginia, this disparity is most pronounced: In 2015, Black adults comprised 19 percent of the state’s population, but 57 percent of the state’s imprisoned population.
Black and Hispanic populations are disproportionately represented in the United States’ prison populations, comprising 56 percent of the country’s prison population but only 13 percent and 16 percent of the total nation’s population, respectively, according to the 2010 Census.
Black and Brown people in the U.S. are consequently more likely to be impacted by these undemocratic restrictions. The permanent erasure of voting rights for those convicted of a felony is also a reminder of the excessive voting restrictions that Black and Brown Americans have always faced and harkens back to Jim Crow.
States have begun to take steps to lessen disparities and their many impacts. In 2016, Former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe attempted to permanently restore voting rights to 200,000 Virginians, and was ultimately able to restore voting rights to 156,221 people in the state.
Kentucky’s recently elected governor, Andy Beshear, restored the right to vote and run for office to over 140,000 residents who have completed sentences for nonviolent felony offenses.
There is a proposed constitutional amendment in Iowa, supported by Gov. Kim Reynolds and the ACLU of Iowa, that would amend the state constitution and end permanent disenfranchisement for any felony.
Even though there are still multiple steps before the constitutional amendment could come to fruition, the proposed amendment is a positive step in the direction towards restoring rights to all Iowans.
We can never forget nor negate that our democracy works best when all voices are heard. We will continue to fight for the rights of all.
Mia’s high school peers are completing class assignments from their school parking lot because they, like many families in their rural Maryland community, lack access to internet at home. Delina, a high school junior from Arizona, has to wait until all her younger siblings finish their schoolwork using the one computer at home before she can use it to start hers. One student from New Jersey fears that the lack of privacy protections for students using remote learning technology puts their mom at increased risk of deportation.
This is the reality of education in America during the COVID-19 crisis, according to the students who’ve shared their experiences with the ACLU. Students recently thrust into distance learning by school closures are worried they’ll fall behind their peers — or even have to repeat the school year — simply because their families can’t afford high-speed internet or a computer. Others fear marketers and other companies are collecting, storing, and even sharing their highly personal information because current remote learning technologies lack basic privacy protections.
We’re calling on Congress and state and local governments nationwide to take immediate decisive action to address the current education crisis in America. In letters sent to state and local officials in 23 states, we’re demanding all students have equal access to the technologies that make effective remote learning possible, and that states and school districts mandate the implementation of strong and uniform privacy safeguards to protect students when they are engaged in remote learning.
We’re also asking Congress to provide billions of dollars in funding as part of the next COVID-19 relief package to meet the broadband access and technology needs of students, people with low income, and other impacted individuals.
Our children deserve — and governments have a legal obligation to provide — safe and equal access to an adequate education.
There are more than 40 million households in the U.S. without an internet subscription, and 11 million of those homes lack any type of computing device. The lack of access disproportionately affects people of color, regardless of income, and reflects our society’s structural racism. Ten percent of Black and Hispanic people in this country have no internet subscription and 13 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives are also without internet access at home.
With unemployment at Great Depression levels, the number of people and families lacking access to technology and broadband services is likely to rise. The effects of this growing digital divide will not only impact the virtual classroom, but ripple well beyond it to other vital services.
For young people and adults, the result is being unable to access telehealth services, apply for benefits, attend religious services, order groceries and medications, or communicate with families and communities. Finding employment will become even more difficult, while others may not be able to work safely from home, even if their employer would permit it, without broadband internet access. Older adults lacking access to broadband telehealth services may be forced to risk their health by leaving their homes for medical appointments.
People with disabilities face even greater challenges as services move online. For instance, many students who have vision disabilities, learning disabilities, and limitations in upper body mobility may not be able to access online classes if the format is not accessible to screen readers and other assistive technology.
The government must step in and provide support to the students, older adults, families with low incomes, and those impacted by the economic crisis that need broadband connectivity and connection-enabled technology to live their lives as safely as possible until the pandemic subsides. As part of the next COVID-19 relief package, Congress must provide:
$2-3 billion per month for the duration of the crisis and for at least 30 days after the crisis ends to provide an emergency broadband benefit to all low-income households and all households experiencing hardship as a result of the pandemic, and
$4 billion, at minimum, for an Emergency Connectivity Fund to provide immediate assistance for students and library patrons that need access to technology to engage in remote and distance learning in their homes.
State and local government officials must also fulfill their duties to provide students, including students with disabilities and from low-income families, access to their educations.
With the crisis showing no signs of subsiding soon, and the prospect of returning to everyday life uncertain in the near term, we must take bold action across multiple fronts to ensure access to broadband and connectivity-enabled technology for everyone. We must also make sure this crisis doesn’t expose our children to even more invasive data collection practices.
As Ella Rosenberg, a high school junior from North Carolina, put it, “No kid on Earth was responsible for these circumstances and so we shouldn’t be suffering because of it.”
